I want to challenge you to this debate, i am new to this website and to debating on a whole however i want to try and prove that Prostitution should not be legalized. The rules for this debate is as follows:

I'd like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and welcome him to this site.

See the comments for rule clarifications.

Definitions

Legalize: To make lawful/legal (http://tiny.cc...)Prostitution: The act or practice of providing sexual services to another person in return for payment. (http://tiny.cc...)

Prostitution will still happen

It is irrelevant whether prostitution is legal or illegal - there will still be prostitutes. I quote from an article published by The Economist (http://tiny.cc...): "Prohibition of gambling and alcohol have both been tried in varying degrees in dozens of countries around the world, always with the result of stimulating illegality and sleaze. The sex industry appears to be no different. All developed economies have conceded that the business is impossible to stamp out." There remains ongoing evidence of this to this day. In the United States, 15% of men admit to having paid for sex in 2004 - despite it being illegal in all states except Nevada (http://tiny.cc...). An even larger number of men probably didn't want to admit to a crime to a random person conducting a telephone survey. Similar kinds of survey effects happen with drugs as well.

There are a number of reasons for this. The most important thing is to consider why people become prostitutes, and the typical answer is that they need money. Prostitution is selling yourself - this is not a decision made on a whim. These are usually people who feel they have few other options. This is why an extraordinarily large proportion of prostitutes contemplate suicide. Prostitutes are the broke college students who need to make a little money to finish their degrees. Prostitutes are the homeless who can't find work. They're the hard working mothers whose day job doesn't earn them sufficient income to give their kids a good education. These people do not just magically disappear because you make prostitution illegal. There's no reason to think this kind of group - who probably need the work more than anyone else - will just accept unemployment as an alternative.

The main difference is that prostitutes would be more likely to honor local restrictions on how they can practice, but more importantly, where they can practice. For instance, there are good reasons not to allow street prostitutes to solicit customers right outside a public school, so it's good to put such restrictions in place. However, if prostitution is illegal everywhere, then prostitutes have little incentive not to solicit anywhere they want, so long as the police isn't watching at the time. The problem here is that the police can't watch everywhere all the time, so prostitutes tend to practice just as much in places where we don't want them as in places that are a little more appropriate.

Safety

The harm of having prostitutes work underground is that they cannot be monitored by the government. Prostitution is still relatively easy to do because unlike many industries, prostitution is by nature a secretive kind of business, particularly since many clients will be married or similar. Having support networks available for prostitutes to find out more information, share details about bad clients and get out of the industry if they want to is really important, but it this is almost impossible to organise when the government is trying to stop you.

Prostitution is one of the world's most dangerous professions. For instance, clients who do not get what they want or find themselves unable to pay will often rape the prostitute for that reason. More mean clients may engage in sexual harassment. Some clients abuse prostitutes or blackmail them. The difference is that while prostitution is illegal, if one party was asking for money from the other it's a crime. That means that the prostitutes rarely come forward to police with these kinds of crimes - because THEY'RE the criminals. Talking to other prostitutes is also very difficult because they're all trying to work secretly. The very fact that they're doing something illegal can also be used by clients as a form of blackmail. If the prostitute fails to deliver something the client wanted, and the client responds badly to that, the client may threaten the prostitute that they may end up in prison too. All this is bad for a number of reasons. First, it provides additional incentives for clients to do bad things to prostitutes. Second, it means more crime goes unreported. Both of these are particularly harmful since the sort of people who do bad things to hookers are exactly the kind of people we want in prison, as they are likely to also be bad in other aspects of their lives. In addition to putting them in prison directly, they are less likely to commit the crimes in the first place as their root cause is often a build up of sexual frustration - prostitution being a way for these people to let off steam. As well as clients, managers of illegal brothels are also rarely the nicest people, as the fact they are exploiting young women to do something criminal would suggest.

Given their volume of sexual contact, prostitutes also need to be very aware of safe sex practices. The trouble is that prostitutes are often afraid even of visiting a doctor because of the fear of being found out as a result. Doctors have several incentives to do exactly this, not least among them that few people like to visit a medical practice that breaks laws, and the importance of reputation in the medical profession. The harms of this are that sexually transmitted diseases spread more readily from one prostitute to the next, causing health issues in the population as a whole. For prostitutes, the most dangerous of these is one known as "pregnancy". It's dangerous because it financially ruins the prostitute - both because it stops their primary income stream, and because the resulting child costs the prostitute money (unless they get an abortion, which is also expensive, controversial and dangerous). In any event it's a quick and obvious way of being busted as a prostitute.

Within the wider prostitution industry, there is also the significant risk of human trafficking. This is much harder to do when you're a legal brothel or similar than when you're illegal. Connections to the prostitution network directly allow police to monitor warning signs that human trafficking may be going on somewhere. Other management practices that can also be monitored include the age of the prostitutes, which is impossible if the police are trying to catch the prostitutes rather than process them. Underage prostitutes sometimes, although more rarely, start practicing on their own, which would indicate immediate intervention is required in their lives. This is more difficult to monitor if, for example, they are not only too ashamed to open up to their family, but doing so would get them incarcerated and give them a criminal record as well. In general, having labor protections is important in any industry, but the rule of law does not extend to the black market, thus posing a significant workplace safety risk. Beyond the immediate risks of their own industry, forcing them into circles of people who engage in illegal activity may get them involved in other illegal activities, such as taking drugs.

Safety is relative not just to the threat but to whom you are putting in a position of danger. The worst part about this is that the poor and vulnerable and the most likely to be prostitutes, and perhaps the most in need of law to protect them. This is because they are the most likely to be sufficiently motivated by the need to get resources as they have the least of them. Making prostitution illegal stigmatizes not only prostitutes, but this whole population who become typecast as frequently being prostitutes. That creates classism and harms the ability of the poor in any given country to work their way out of poverty.

Next round I'll do rebuttal and will add an extra point I didn't have space for, on the role of the state.

Prostitutions: the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment

Legalized: make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law

Prostitution will still happen

I will not deny the fact that prostitution will still happen, but that is no ground for it to be legalized. Now you state that "The most important thing is to consider why people become prostitutes, and the typical answer is that they need money." I can argue that everyone needs money. (Need money in a sense that "we cannot do without money"). That is no ground to legalize prostitution because not everyone who "needs money" are prostituting. When you say prostitution is selling yourself that statement is rather ambiguous. What if should show my talents and abilities in order to be recognized as a worthy candidate for a job, that is also considered as selling myself. And I should argue based on that view your argument nullified. You made a statement about choice or to say "few options" but that is no ground to legalize. Let us consider the act of murder in comparison. Remember that murder by law is wrong. However people are still murdering each other for whatever reason. Let us consider the act of stealing. I may also argue by substituting the word "thieves" to you are argument which would then be:
Thieves are the broke college students who need to make a little money to finish their degrees. Thieves are the homeless who can't find work. They're the hard working mothers whose day job doesn't earn them sufficient income to give their kids a good education. These people do not just magically disappear because you make stealing illegal.
Based on that should we say that stealing should be legalized? And bear in mind that whether or not is legalize it is still wrong. So my opponent your argument about it would still happen is no ground to legalize prostitution because there are many laws out there and people are still breaking them. If you have a child and you tell that child not to go outside, will you allow him to go outside because he will do it anyway? Therefore that argument is nullified.
You stated "The main difference is that prostitutes would be more likely to honor local restrictions on how they can practice, but more importantly, where they can practice." There is no creditability to that statement which means I can argue otherwise. That argument is based on your own terms and there is no research to back up your statement.

Safety

You stated that "The harm of having prostitutes work underground is that they cannot be monitored by the government." I can argue the same thing about thieves. Stealing cannot be monitor by the government so it is tend to be done underground. Whether prostitution is legal or not you will still have bad clients. My opponent if "Prostitution is one of the world's most dangerous professions." Why then should it be legalized? I can argue that thieves are also blackmailed as well. My point is my opponent all that you stated is no ground to legalize prostitution of you argue based on those criteria then other acts that are deem by laws of wrong should also be legalized. No matter what the ground you will not stop or prevent harm against prostitutes and I will not change the way how people view or think about them. Being that there are less likely to commit the crime doesn"t mean that they will not. How is it that prostitution considered as a "profession" and yet prostitutes don"t know safe sex practices, then what is the sense? How can I be an accountant and cannot balance of accounts? Or a doctor but cannot prescribe medication? How can you argue that prostitution should be legalized and yet you are saying that they do not practice safe sex? I can also say that thieves are also the poor and vulnerable and the law is to protect them, but that doesn"t rule out the fact that stealing is wrong, does it? Your argument about opening up to families and criminal record can also be applied to thieves yet there is no guarantee that if they open up to their families that it would lead to what you have stated and there is no research to back up that statement so I can rule out your statement as invalid. None of the things you state is a solid ground to say that prostitution should be legalized and if prostitution is legalized it will increase the risk of human trafficking as you already pointed out and that is very dangerous on your part. Legalizing prostitution will not stop violence against women therefore it must not be legalized. And yet it as failed [1]

My argument:

Prostitution increase the risk human trafficking

It does matter what we think once we can reason logically and rationally we cannot deny this fact. If people are trafficking human beings and forcing them into prostitution, wouldn"t it be likely to increase when it is legalized? If it is not legalized and they are not being caught what makes you think that they will be if it is legalized? In some countries human trafficking has increased tremendously and it"s because of prostitution [2]. And if this is so, how is it that you want prostitution to be legalized. Studies have shown that where prostitution is legalized human trafficking has increased drastically [3]. And if one should consider the implication of human trafficking more specifically the effect it has on its victims its rather disturbing. Studies have shown that the majority of victims are under the age of 18 [4]. Think about the amount of families which have been affected by such an act. Studies also reveal that it leads to mental illnesses [5]. Is this what you are advocating my opponent? I suggest that you think carefully when you are advocating. Many children lives are being destroyed and are destroyed. Is that what you are advocating? Come on my opponent cogitate on the matter. Some of the implications are endless.
1 http://communities.washingtontimes.com...
2 http://communities.washingtontimes.com...
3. http://communities.washingtontimes.com...
4.) http://biussblog.blogspot.com...
5.) http://biussblog.blogspot.com...

Thanks to my opponent for his great arguments. In this round I will rebut his arguments, then defend mine, then add my final argument.

Human Trafficking

I agree that anything that increases human trafficking is bad. I disagree with my opponent's assertion that legalising prostitution creates more human trafficking. My opponent has two sources, one from a blog that pretty much asserts this based on the opinions of a site called "Bible Knowledge" (with no research to back it up), and the other one is from the opinion pages of a minor newspaper. Both say that studies have been done but do not cite the studies, and despite a good search I cannot find any of them anywhere. His sources would do well to note that prostitution in Amsterdam is not legalised but decriminalised.

Why does human trafficking happen? Prostitutes do not smuggle themselves. They get smuggled and traded by gangsters and criminal organisations. Prostitutes have no choice but to join these - they have no legal protections because they are also criminals, and they need protection from the law which the criminals can provide. This dependency is the problem. There is zero empirical evidence from peer-reviewed research that smuggling increases when prostitution is legal (http://eprints.qut.edu.au...), and it's because of the reduced dependency on criminal groups.

Prostitution is only a tiny fraction of human trafficking that happens in the world (http://www.jstor.org...). It would be much better to tackle this problem rather than make the wrong assumption that all prostitutes are victims of trafficking (http://femlaw.queensu.ca...) and therefore need to be victimised by the government some more, by throwing them in jail and/or (if they are indeed trafficked) sending them back home with nothing. It's like banning retail in order to stop theft.

But even if this were somehow the prostitute's fault, the solution is not to ban all prostitution just because some people do it wrong. Banning all prostitution because some people smuggle prostitutes is analogous to banning all TV because some people watch too much TV. Rather, it should be illegal to smuggle prostitutes, not to be a prostitute.

As one book put it (http://goo.gl...) "trafficking in women, coercion and exploitation can only be stopped if the existence of prostitution is recognized and the legal and social rights of prostitutes are guaranteed."

Prostitution will still happen

My opponent's argument basically boils down to this: stealing still happens, so let's make that legal too. I'm not saying this is a reason to make it legal. That's what my safety and role of the state points are for. The reason I make this argument is because all the counter-arguments to prostitution rely on prostitution actually being reduced as a result of criminalisation, which all the evidence indicates it isn't. So while my opponent may make a good argument that legalisation does not follow from this, that isn't my point - my point is that prostitution will still happen. In my own country we have plenty of empirical evidence for this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz...).

Safety

If my opponent wants me to draw a distinction between other crimes and prostitution, I would be able to give several, such as the fact that prostitution does not have a victim and that no party is dissatisfied with the outcome. Having said that, my point is that prostitutes are better off when they are safer. Thieves are rarely raped and murdered. Every year that is the reality for thousands of prostitutes in countries where it is illegal. Our society has a problem with violent crime, and I've provided tons of analysis in the last round that legalising something that is (for no good reason) a "soft crime" can actually prevent a lot of this harder, more violent and more dangerous crime. That's good not only for the prostitute, but also for people like me that abhor prostitution.

My opponent also argues that to be a profession it must have standards for safe sex and so on. I agree. Prostitution should have standards. The reason it doesn't is that there's no advocacy for prostitutes. As a result if prostitution is illegal, anybody with the ability to have sex can become a prostitute. When it's legal, legal requirements can be put in to ensure that prostitutes have safe sex, just like we ensure doctors are competent.

Like my previous opponent, this opponent asks me to give sources citing empirical evidence of everything I say. Something that's logical, as my argument is, is true whether you have empirical proof or not, but in fact I can support everything I said there empirically. I just need my opponent to be more specific about what fact he disagrees with. If he would actually tell me what was wrong with my argument, I'd be happy to prove him wrong.

He does mention that I lack a source that opening up to families leads to those families being able to make an intervention if the child is underage, which was my point about families. Actually there is a lot of evidence that legal prostitution can open up a whole range of discourse with young people and their families about it: http://goo.gl...

He also does not believe prostitutes are more likely to honor other laws if prostitution is legal. This has been proven many times in academic journals, for instance: http://jiv.sagepub.com...

Furthermore, he misreads my point on trafficking, and how it can be REDUCED (not increased) with legal prostitution.

Role of the State

In general, prostitution fits a class of actions that the state has already deemed to be legal. The state decided long ago that people ought to be free to use their bodies sexually to make a profit - this is why the pornography industry exists. Sex is no more illegal than posing nude, so the only principally consistent application of the law is not to ban either of them when money is added back into the equation. If we accept the view that the state is to determine moral rules about what should and should not be done, we must also expect the state to actually have a consistent and coherent moral code. The harm of this is that the general lack of principle in what determines right from wrong reduces clarity in certain borderline situations, thus reducing legal certainty. It's a lot more difficult to respect both the law in general, and any given law, when you aren't really sure what the law is or why it's there. This is definitely the case with prostitution.

There are several arguments from specific perspectives on how the state should be behaving, in addition to the above argument from inconsistency in how the state is behaving. Prostitution is a privacy issue, because it concerns things done in the most private of all possible spaces. Government regulation over what we do on the internet, which is somehow also considered private, is not allowed - so then why is regulating prostitution allowed? Almost all of privacy law is about getting others out of our private lives - the only major exception is prostitution. This itself raises another question - since prostitution is so private and there are no spillover effects on others when it is managed and regulated correctly, why should the government even care? Prostitution law would therefore be a major overstepping of the state's role in our society. There are two impacts of this. First, there is a slippery slope towards more arbitrary "moralizing" of our lives, including our private lives. Second, it reduces general trust in the law, which impacts on crime rates.

My opponent tends to discredit my argument by saying “My opponent's argument basically boils down to this: stealing still happens, so let's make that legal too. I'm not saying this is a reason to make it legal.” Then what are you saying then? Even if you take that approach it still doesn’t add up to it being legalized, you cannot escape validity of my argument. Why? You stated that “The reason I make this argument is because all the counter-arguments to prostitution rely on prostitution actually being reduced as a result of criminalization, which all the evidence indicates it isn't.” I can also argue the same about stealing, because the idea is that stealing will be reduced as a result of it being criminalized, and it is evident that it isn’t. And the fact is that stealing comes in different form but it is still stealing. The thing is that you are arguing from a different aspect. Safety and role of the state has nothing to do with prostitution being legalized. Why? The resolution state that Prostitution should be legalized. Now my opponent your role is to tell me why prostitution should be legalized and not what should come after it is. You made mention about your country, but the fact is, my opponent, there are about two hundred countries in the world, and New Zealand is only one. Therefore it cannot speak for the majority. While it may be so in your country it may not be the case in another. Another thing is, the reason why you can make reference to you own country is that it is regulated. And that my opponent, is a different aspect. Regulating prostitution is different from legalizing it.

Safety

It seems as if you are saying that prostitution should be legalized because prostitutes are not safe. But that is hardly the case, for whether it is legalized are not, prostitutes will never be safe due to the nature of the work. You stated that “If my opponent wants me to draw a distinction between other crimes and prostitution, I would be able to give several, such as the fact that prostitution does not have a victim and that no party is dissatisfied with the outcome. Having said that, my point is that prostitutes are better off when they are safer.” While you make a good point about no party being dissatisfied, we cannot be fully sure of this in all cases. You have to be careful when you say outcome. What if one party contracted a STI? I can say that is an outcome, and no one will tend to be satisfied with such an outcome. The next thing is that you also make a good point that prostitutes are better off when they are safer, but my question is how to one measures the idea of being safe? Once you are vulnerable to your life being threaten in one way or another, you are not considered as safe. Some persons say safety is freedom from harm, and prostitutes are more vulnerable to being harm due to the nature of the work. Furthermore, there are many persons who are being raped and murdered besides prostitutes, regardless of what law is there, whether they catch the criminal or not. So my opponent it is safe to say that nobody is safe whether they are prostitutes are not. You made mention that a "soft crime" can actually prevent a lot of this harder, more violent and more dangerous crime.” This is a very good point however is that really so? My opponent that’s an opinion because in any case you are saying let prostitution be legalized with the HOPE of it preventing a lot of this harder, more violent and more dangerous crime. Reason being we cannot be sure that this will be the case.

Role of State

My opponent states “The state decided long ago that people ought to be free to use their bodies sexually to make a profit - this is why the pornography industry exists.” But is my opponent aware that the pornography industry is also linked to human trafficking? Those persons who get entangled in human trafficking are sometimes the very persons you see in these pornography movies and films. You mention about money be added back to equation but I can also argue the same thing about stealing because persons also steals money and it can be added back to the equation. When you mention having a consistent and coherent moral code, moral in what sense? I want to know what you consider as being moral. The issue of moral varies from country to country. What you view as moral in New Zealand may not be what others view as moral in other countries. Some persons defined moral as related to human behavior especially the distinction between good and bad right or wrong. What if people have this view that prostitution is not moral because that is not the right way of going about having sex, in a sense that sex was not to be exploited or exchange for cash but rather for procreation through the art of pleasure. Being that said how is it that we measure what is right from what is wrong? Until that can be done, the state can do little or nothing to regulated prostitution in some cases. Because what the State determine as right or wrong may not be what the prostitutes themselves determine as right or wrong. For instance that state will say that “persons below the age of 18 cannot be practicing prostitution” but others disagree with it and due to the nature of their situation they chose not to obey it.

While my opponent makes a very good point (I honestly cannot deny it) in stating “Prostitution is a privacy issue, because it concerns things done in the most private of all possible spaces. Government regulation over what we do on the internet, which is somehow also considered private, is not allowed - so then why is regulating prostitution allowed? Almost all of privacy law is about getting others out of our private lives - the only major exception is prostitution.” But he cannot deny the fact that stealing is also a private issue. If I work at a back or in an accounting department if I chose to steal that’s my personal and private business, no one else needs to know that. However that doesn’t makes it right does it. Being that it’s private my opponent has nothing to do with it being legalized. If I decided to privately steal from a multi-billion dollar company why should the government even care?

Human Trafficking

Why does human trafficking happen? My opponent rose a very important question in the attempt to answer it however he failed. This is not an issue of whether or not prostitutes smuggle themselves but that person smuggle people and turn them into prostitutes because there is the potential make an enormous amount of money from it. And the reason is because prostitution is legal. You made a point in your earlier argument about how prostitution can be reduced. My opponent made mention about warning signs the police can come across in order to find out if human trafficking is going on somewhere. But there is another part to that argument, I can argue that when prostitution is illegal, once police identify that prostitution is occurring somewhere then investigation can be done to find out if human trafficking is behind it. The thing is when prostitution is legalized it is more difficult to detect if human trafficking is behind it or not because its legal so police has no right to question a prostitute about her work.

My opponent states “Prostitution is only a tiny fraction of human trafficking that happens in the world” However my opponent whether is tiny fraction or not the fact is my opponent is still a part of it.

You made a very good point (again I cannot deny it) in stating “But even if this were somehow the prostitute's fault, the solution is not to ban all prostitution just because some people do it wrong.” But there is another part to that statement. The solution is not to legalize prostitution because some people do it right. Because some people do not smuggle prostitutes is similar to legalize stealing because some steal from the rich and give to the poor.

Apologies for the delay - I have been busy with other stuff. Thanks for an interesting debate so far.

A quick note on the resolution

My opponent seems to assume that since I'm defending prostitution being legalised, I can't be defending that it should be regulated. This is a non-sequiter. In fact I'm defending the legalisation of prostitution in order that it might be regulated. If my opponent agrees a regulated industry is better than an unregulated one, he must also agree that this industry should be legal. Regulation is a positive outcome of following my model, which is both to legalise and to regulate, even though I need to defend only one of those two things in the debate. You need to legalise prostitution in order to regulate it. In fact, every single country in the world with legal prostitution also has regulations for prostitution as well as more general labor protections that are extended to prostitutes.

Prostitution will still happen

For the first time in this debate, we've just heard my opponent contest that making prostitution legal does not mean more people do it. His argument is essentially that we can't all be as good as New Zealand. While I'm going to have to admit New Zealand is pretty damn awesome, I can assure you that our awesomeness derives from things other than prostitution. Our experiences with prostitution can therefore be said to be quite representative. To prove this point, my opponent needed to identify how we are (or were) different with respect to prostitution to other countries around the world.

I think my opponent might still be confused about how this argument fits into my case. To ensure safety and the role of state being fulfilled, we could either stop prostitution or legalise it. My argument here is only that you can't stop prostitution - it will still happen.

Safety

If never being safe due to the nature of work was a justifiable reason for banning anything, we should ban everything. Every profession carries some degree of risk, be it mining, fishing, agriculture, banking, truck driving, serving in the army, or anything else. Governments have a certain obligation to help people minimise the risk where this is possible. They do so in every legal industry.

Moving on to the argument that prostitution cannot be distinguished from crime. My opponent reasons that in prostitution one party may be dissatisfied. This is true, but it is not inherent to prostitution. The difference is that with prostitution, as with any willing transaction, you can generally assume that both parties were happy, whilst with crime you can generally assume the opposite.

My opponent argues that nobody is safe. While this is true, prostitutes are particularly vulnerable because unlike everyone else, they can't go to the police if something bad happens to them. The law is there to protect everyone - except, apparently, prostitutes. There are a number of other reasons why prostitutes are particularly vulnerable, which I have already described.

Finally my opponent says there is no evidence that legalising soft crimes can prevent harder crimes. First, to make this point you need to engage with my evidence from round two, which was a fair amount of causal links. Second, there is empirical evidence for this as well. There is indirect evidence from alcohol prohibition (http://www.liberator.net...) and statistically based on prostitution data (http://www.kuro5hin.org...).

Role of State

I am well aware pornography is linked to human trafficking. I chose it quite deliberately. Loads of industries are linked to trafficking. Even having a non-open border is strongly linked to human trafficking. My point is that a vague link to human trafficking is not sufficient to make prostitution illegal any more than pornography is illegal or all borders should be open. The point is that the government can't say sex and money are allowed to mix in one industry and not in another, because that's inconsistent.

The point about money wasn't to say money is good and everything involving it should be legalised. It was to establish that both pornography and prostitution share the same basic elements, with the sole exception of physical contact (which ought really to increase, not reduce, the state's obligation if anything).

I know that your government thinks pornography is OK. Perhaps there might be an argument for those countries where it is illegal, such as those with Sharia law, but for countries where the government has already accepted pornography is moral (which is almost all of them), they also need to accept prostitution is moral. People can, for instance, choose to disagree with the state about when they're ready to go into the pornography business. Such people are thrown in jail for good reason.

If you steal from a bank - even if you do it in secret - it's the bank's business. Therefore it's not a privacy issue. The difference between a bank and a prostitute is that the bank is a public institution. Others are affected if that money is lost. If I'd stolen a trade secret from a bank told to me in private, then that might be a privacy issue in that privacy has been breached - competitors can come into the private space of the firm. Getting others out is different from getting the government out. The government needs to control others to prevent them from interfering with our private affairs - and prevent us from interfering with others - if we are all willing. This is the principle on which privacy law is founded.

Human Trafficking

My opponent thinks you can make money through human trafficking. This can only possibly be economically true if there is excess demand for prostitutes. You can't reduce demand in the local economy, nor can you change supply overall, as proved by my first point. What you can do is increase local supply to meet local demand and therefore make trafficking more expensive. So the reason why you can make money off trafficking is that prostitution is illegal, not that it's legal. Either way trafficking should be kept illegal.

If prostitution is illegal, police need to find and discover underground networks to trace back who did the smuggling. Traffickers themselves are caught much more rarely than people who are trafficked, and it's because they're able to keep their identity a secret as the prostitutes (who are usually more than willing to identify them) are all thrown into jail and not listened to. Once again, prostitutes are the victims here! They're not the criminals we should be catching. They should be testifying against these awful people instead. If a prostitute comes up to the police and says "I think trafficking is going on here", then the police has the co-operation of that prostitute, rather than the prostitute deliberately working against the police to escape conviction. As con has already proved, prostitutes don't like being trafficked, so they'll always help the police out. I should add, though, that police can already question anybody about their work if they think a crime is going on.

My opponent admits the problem is much wider than prostitution. The obvious solution is to stop blaming the prostitutes and keeping their profession illegal, but instead tackling the bigger issue.

The solution is absolutely to legalise something if keeping it illegal is causing a massive harm, which it is. With stealing we accept that being a Robin Hood is something that makes you an outlaw, although there are situations in which it is actually legal to steal (taxes, for instance). We just ban it when it creates big harms. Prostitution can be good - and why make a good thing illegal when you can make just the bad part illegal?

My opponent states “For the first time in this debate, we've just heard my opponent contest that making prostitution legal does not mean more people do it.” My opponent, where in my argument did you see that statement? My opponent I am actually arguing the opposite. My opponent has failed to adequately defend his point. As he stated “I think my opponent might still be confused about how this argument fits into my case.” And I can assure you I still am. You have to understand that if I do something and it works for me, if you do the same thing it might not work for you. It is not about being awesome it’s about facing the facts. For instance I may go over to a person and say “you idiot!” and that person don’t react in any way, but you may go over and say the same thing and the person gets all aggressive and angry. So my point still stands what may work in New Zealand may not work for the other two hundreds countries.

Safety

My opponent states “If never being safe due to the nature of work was a justifiable reason for banning anything, we should ban everything.” While this is true, my point is that legalizing Prostitution doesn’t make the prostitutes safer or no anyone in any industry. Be it mining, fishing, agriculture, banking, truck driving, serving in the army. Tell me, what obligation can stop a person who is mining from dying? Or stop a person in the army from dying? Or stop a truck driver truck from turning over? My opponent it doesn’t matter what angle you look at it from, no regulation cannot stop a person from being raped, or murdered. There are tons of laws and everyday persons are being murdered, persons are stilled being raped. So my opponent safety has nothing to do with prostitution being legalized.

I am glad that my opponent agrees with me that in prostitution one party may be dissatisfied. My opponent states that “you can generally assume that both parties were happy, whilst with crime you can generally assume the opposite.” My opponent, are you aware of the word that you use: “generally ASSUME.” If assuming was a justifiable reason for anything I can generally assume that all secular artistes are demonic but does that prove that they are? My opponent assuming something is a very dangerous thing to do. For it does not guarantee the fact.

I am happy my opponent agrees that no one is safe. My opponent states that “prostitutes are particularly vulnerable because unlike everyone else, they can't go to the police if something bad happens to them.” My opponent does the fact a person can go to the police if something bad happens to them makes them safe? If they were safe my opponent there wouldn’t be the need to go the police in the first place doesn’t it? My opponent also states that “the law is there to protect everyone” but my opponent tell me one person that the law has protect? The mere fact that people keep on going to court was that they have been harm hence they were not protected. If a person backs you up in an alley one night with a knife or gun, tell me what law can protect you in that case?

You stated “Finally my opponent says there is no evidence that legalizing soft crimes can prevent harder crimes.” My opponent I did not say that there is no evidence, so do not misrepresent my point. You need to also bear in mind that there are also evidence that state otherwise [1] [2]. So my opponent your argument has little or no justification.

Role of the State

I can see that my opponent admit that human trafficking is linked to pornography. But my opponent ignore the fact the pornography is different from prostitution. My point was not because human trafficking is linked to pornography therefore make prostitution illegal. It was that because of the profit that could be made from pornography and that those who get entangled human trafficking are prostituted, it’s then videoed, and sold the public. The fact is my opponent is that pornography involves the media while prostitution does not. As you had stated it’s a privacy issue. Prostitution is providing sexual service in return for payment and pornography is the explicit portrayal of sexual matter, hence they are different. Pornography is not always linked to sex and money but prostitution is. Therefore there is no inconsistency due to that fact.

My opponent it better you say that pornography and prostitution share some but not all elements as already established. And the mere fact that there is an exception proves that point for physical contact is not the only exception.

Yes I agree that my Government thinks that pornography is ok. My opponent who says that all government accepts pornography as moral? By the way on what basis is pornography moral? I believe that pornography should also be banned however we are arguing about prostitution not pornography. I already asked you a question and I will ask it again, how does one measure the idea of being moral? Accepting that pornography is ok doesn’t mean that you accept it as moral. Look at it this way, I may not care what people wants to do with their bodies, but that doesn’t mean it think it is right (moral) does it? You might say that if I say something is ok doesn’t that mean I think it is right? However that is not the case. For I may say it right for people to choose to do what they want to do but it’s not right for people to choose to do prostitution.

My opponent you stated that “If you steal from a bank - even if you do it in secret - it's the bank's business.” My opponent it seems you have misinterpreted my point. I said if I chose to steal from a bank that is my private and personal business. You also stated that “Getting others out is different from getting the government out. The government needs to control others to prevent them from interfering with our private affairs - and prevent us from interfering with others - if we are all willing. This is the principle on which privacy law is founded.” I am confused as to who you want to get others or the government because in an earlier argument you stated “sinceprostitution is so private and there are no spillover effects on others when it is managed and regulated correctly, why should the government even care?” seems like you want the government out to me. However no matter what law there is we cannot keep others out.

Human trafficking

You stated “My opponent thinks you can make money through human trafficking.” Again my opponent you misinterpret my point. I didn’t say anything about making money through human trafficking but making money through prostitution. All that you stated in (R3 Para. 1) is non-sequitur. It is a total misinterpretation of my point. You stated “So the reason why you can make money off trafficking is that prostitution is illegal, not that it's legal.” That was not what I am saying I am saying that people smuggle persons and turn them into prostitutes because the potential is there to make an enormous amount of money from prostitution. Hence my point still stands.

My opponent makes a good argument in stating “If prostitution is illegal, police need to find and discover underground networks to trace back that did the smuggling.” So my opponent if prostitution is legal who says that the police will not do the same thing. I am sure that no nub skull trafficks humans, those who traffick humans are aware of its implication especially when prostitution is legal. They reason why they keep their identity as secrets is because they don’t want to get caught not because police won’t listen to prostitutes. My opponent prostitutes will always be victims whether they are entangled in human trafficking or not.

I am left with little space to adequately defend my point however it was a good debate.

We've now reached the end of this debate. I'll just do some quick summaries. I think there are three key questions that we need to be asking ourselves at this point:

1) Will prostitutes be safer?My opponent agrees that people will be prostitutes, and buy prostitutes, whether it is illegal or not. The question is whether you can make a prostitute safer. I gave a number of mechanisms.

First, they feel safer because they have fewer threats, the police having been eliminated as a threat.Second, the police are able to protect them from other threats.Third, other threats are less likely to target prostitutes due to police and possible resulting legal action.Fourth, they are able to support each other better and help each other out if one prostitute is either being unsafe or recovering from being unsafe. A subpoint here is that they avoid pregnancy.Fifth, they are better able to get support from their families, who they do not fear going to the police.Sixth, you can put in place standards to ensure safety, just like for other professions.

Con had one response. I agreed prostitutes would still not be absolutely secure. The point is, though, that this is no reason to keep it banned, any more so than it is a reason to ban truck driving. While it doesn't completely resolve the problem, it does serve to mitigate the harms. Related to this was his point that this is premised on assumptions, that research and empirical evidence might not hold true in the real world, or that the new sources he brings out in the last round conflict it. At the end of the day, everything is premised on assumptions, all evidence has its roots in empiricism, nothing may hold true in the real world tomorrow for all we know, and anybody can write anything on the internet. We have to go on the best information we have available to us. Right now it's all pointing towards prostitutes being safer.

2) Will more or less prostitutes be trafficked?Recall that we all agreed this was bad. So when are police best able to solve human trafficking crimes - when they're chasing prostitutes or when they're chasing traffickers?

Prostitutes are not victims. They are people making a legitimate and often empowering choice about how they want to live their lives. Those who are forced into it are the victims. Those who are smuggled are the victims.

At no point in this debate has my opponent managed to prove the problem of human trafficking is WORSE when it's illegal to be a prostitute. That's what he needed to do to win this point. As it stands, I think my counter-analysis from the first round that trafficking will be stamped out through legalisation is quite strong.

3) Is it consistent with the role of the state?My opponent argues that pornography should be legal because it's not always bad, but he doesn't apply that same standard to prostitution - not all exchange of money or sex is bad.

My opponent extends this by arguing both pornography and prostitution are immoral. Personally, I agree. But it's not up to us to decide. The state should still be consistent with its other laws, and since we're not debating those other laws, it's only reasonable that we do what is consistent with those other laws in this debate.

There were a number of peripheral points still lingering here that might warrant another discussion another time, but I feel that generally these two points demonstrate the crux of the issues we considered.

no it is not that i exactly what the article said. okay here is an excerpt "If multiple partnerships save lives, then monogamy can be deadly. Imagine a country where almost all women are monogamous, while all men demand two female partners per year. Under those conditions, a few prostitutes end up servicing all the men. Before long, the prostitutes are infected; they pass the disease to the men; and the men bring it home to their monogamous wives." now since my reading is twisted you explain it to me.

They final thing i want to deal with is this. My opponents states that "The solution is absolutely to legalise something if keeping it illegal is causing a massive harm, which it is." My opponent what if i should inject stealing or murder in your argument it would then read:

"The solution is absolutely to legalise stealing if keeping it illegal is causing a massive harm, which it is."
or "The solution is absolutely to legalise murder if keeping it illegal is causing a massive harm, which it is." So my opponent this argument as little or no justification. The next you stated was that " Prostitution can be good - and why make a good thing illegal when you can make just the bad part illegal?" My opponent this is a very interesting and dangerous question. What if i should inject stealing in your question, it would then read "Stealing can be good - and why make a good thing illegal when you can make just the bad part illegal?" however if you are saying that the bad part of prostitution is human trafficking, rape or murder you will be ignorant in asking that question due to the fact those things are already illegal. And that brings me back to your point "it will still happen" due to fact that human trafficking is illegal and it still happening should we legalize it to bearing in mind that we cant stop it no matter what? hence if human trafficking is illegal and you cannot stop it what makes you think you can stop it when prostitution is legalized?

i know this is not allowed, i am not even quite sure if is isn't however i need to finish my argument and am going to do it here so please forgive me.

I was saying that prostitutes will always be victims and it is not because they get entangled in human trafficking or that they are raped but the mere fact that they are prostitutes. Does my opponent understands the essence of human trafficking? As i said, no numb skull does trafficking so to ensure or to minimize the risk, they brainwash their victims so as much as how they would want to testify against them they cant. If a prostitute say to a police that she thinks human trafficking is going on you say that they have the cooperation of that prostitute while this is true that does not guarantee that the police will catch anyone due to fact that she "THINKS." My opponent states that "As con has already proved, prostitutes don't like being trafficked, so they'll always help the police out" but my opponent needs to understand that those who who are being trafficked are not the one will HELP the police out for they are the one who are being brainwashed.

My opponent states "My opponent admits the problem is much wider than prostitution. The obvious solution is to stop blaming the prostitutes and keeping their profession illegal, but instead tackling the bigger issue." But my opponent how do you tackle the bigger issue? by making prostitution legal? As i stated earlier that legalizing prostitution increase it not decrease it. What do you mean the obvious solution is not blaming the prostitutes and keeping their profession illegal? the solution is not making prostitution legal either as i already established. By the way prostitution is not a profession.

Reasons for voting decision: This was a very fascinating debate. Good arguments all around. The most glaring points must go to Pro. This is the sources points. Quite simply, Con used unreliable sources. The arguments must go to Pro. The simple reason being that this debate was inspired by another done by Pro, but that the arguments proffered by Con were in no way better than the other, even though he made some very good points. S/G will be tied. The conduct too will be tied. That being said, welcome to the site, Con.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.